Immigration in Western Europe: Elite Discourse & Public Attitudes
Introduction
Immigration has reshaped European societies like few other phenomena in the past decade. Today, one in four people in Germany are immigrants or have parents that immigrated to the country.1 Similar numbers are recorded in other European countries as well. These significant demographic changes are accompanied by negative attitudes towards immigration among a substantial share of Western Europeans.2 Existing explanations for this mass opposition to immigration have primarily focused on economic insecurity caused by globalization, ethnocentric attitudes, or concerns about crime and terrorism. This essay discusses another potential cause: elite discourse, that is, the narratives perpetuated by high-level public figures, such as politicians and media executives. Examples of negative elite rhetoric about immigration are plenty. French politician and former presidential candidate Marine Le Pen warned that immigration actually threatens French “civilization.”3 A German far-right leader publicly argued that shooting at refugees at the German border would be legitimate.4 Nevertheless, negative discourse on immigration is not exclusive to the far-right of the European political spectrum.
Building on a consistent tradition of academic research in political science that highlights the significant influence politicians and media outlets can exert on the opinion of citizens, this essay synthesizes and evaluates evidence on the impact of elite discourse on public attitudes in the context of immigration. Adopting a broader definition of political elites, it also discusses the role of the media, which serves not just as a channel through which political statements reach the public, but also as a platform that can influence citizens through agenda-setting and issue framing. Finally, it also considers when and how political elites can use their influence to raise support for immigration.
Biased Perceptions of Public Opinion
Since political parties and candidates across the European political spectrum are interested in winning elections, they all have to be responsive to public opinion in different ways. This implies that, to some degree, elite discourse on immigration has found some basis in its reflection of public attitudes. In Western Europe, a substantial part of the electorate opposes immigration for economic reasons, either because they fear competition with immigrants over scarce resources such as jobs and housing,5 or because they think that immigrants constitute a burden on the welfare state and other public resources funded by taxpayers.6 Citizens’ opposition towards immigration can also stem from beliefs that immigrants undermine a supposed national identity,7 or because immigrants are perceived to be a source of crime.8
However, despite such grievances among a sizeable share of collective voters, recent surveys suggest that a large and rising number of Western Europeans in fact support immigration into their country.9 At the same time, research also shows that those who oppose immigration feel stronger about the issue, and consider it to be more important compared to those who view it positively.10 This asymmetry creates a biased perception of public opinion among elite and policymaking circles. Since the anti-immigration camp is more vocal and thus more visible, especially on social media, this sets off a dynamic in which the misperception of public sentiment by politicians creates further opposition towards the issue.
Another reason why elites shape public attitudes towards immigration lies in the nature of political attitude formation itself. Because forming opinions on political issues can be a costly process that requires substantial information gathering and processing, research shows that most voters instead use information shortcuts.11 They do so by taking cues from trusted political figures, parties, and candidates.12 In the context of immigration, voting patterns have shown a tendency to adopt the stance of the voter’s preferred political party.13 Political elites thus exert substantial influence over public opinion that can be swayed in either direction. If a party’s discourse about immigrants becomes more positive, this might also raise support for immigration among its followers. However, the empirical reality in Western Europe is that negative language continues to dominate elite discourse. A key factor in this reality is the rapid rise of anti-immigration parties and affiliations, which directly and indirectly exert a disproportionate influence on public opinion and how immigrants are perceived by citizens.
The rise of anti-immigrant parties has threatened the dominance of more established ones, and pushed the latter to adopt a more negative approach on immigration as a key cornerstone of policy agendas. Parties such as the National Rally (RN) in France, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) in Germany, and the Party for Freedom (PVV) in the Netherlands have enjoyed electoral success based on political campaigns that portray immigration as a threat to the country’s economy, culture, and security. Immigration policy takes an outsized role in the platforms of these parties when compared to pro-immigration parties on the left. Moreover, anti-immigrant parties have a significant influence that goes beyond their own voter base. One indirect mechanism is the normalization of anti-immigrant views. When these parties first establish parliamentary representation and thus gain presence in a key democratic institution, their supporters become more likely to perceive their views as legitimate and socially acceptable, and more willing to openly display them.14 In turn, anti-immigrant views that are more present in the public sphere – either through politicians or their supporters – expose a broader set of citizens to hostile rhetoric, creating the potential for negative positions to spread.
The success of anti-immigrant parties also shapes how other political elites address this policy issue. Parliamentary representation plays an important role here. Once these parties reach the legislature, they receive additional material and non-material resources as well as increased media attention. For established mainstream political parties, the electoral success of anti-immigrant counterparts constitutes a threat to which they respond to by shifting their own stance in a more restrictive direction to win back voters.15 While this strategy is rarely successful from an electoral standpoint,16 by adopting a position that paints immigration in a negative light, mainstream parties legitimize anti-immigrant positions, and thus create further negative sentiments among the broader public. For example, if a German Interior Minister from a major conservative party announces that migration is the “mother of all problems,”17 as Minister Horst Seehofer did in 2018, this will reach and persuade a larger audience than similar statements made by anti-immigrant party elites who are less trusted and respected by many citizens. In this way, although anti-immigrant parties in Western Europe enjoy the support of only a minority of voters, they exert a disproportionate influence on public attitudes by normalizing language that frames immigrants as a threat.
Elections also tend to intensify an already polarized, but on average negative, debate on this front. When voters go to the polls, discourse tends to be dominated by negative statements, and more so if there is a polarizing party contesting the election. Citizens are also more knowledgeable of party positions around election time, as they are exposed to or seek out more political content in the media during that period. Consequently, public opinion becomes particularly negative.18 Thus, while elections are an integral part of European countries, they can also be divisive, as political competition can drive candidates to adopt hostile views as seen in recent election cycles in France and Italy.
The Role of The Media
Most citizens encounter politicians’ statements about immigration through the media. The way in which outlets narrate and report elite statements can have a key impact and a more direct role in shaping voters’ perceptions. The media acts as an agenda-setter by raising the salience of issues it reports on and thereby increasing their importance for people’s vote choice.19 Furthermore, exposure to media content – especially if it has a partisan slant – can shape individuals’ factual beliefs and political views.20 Research shows that the extent of media reporting about immigration increased concerns about the issue in Germany.21 Evidence from Sweden further suggests that different types of media have different effects, with partisan media having a stronger impact on individual attitudes towards immigration than traditional media outlets.22 Reporting about immigration in the media can raise electoral support for anti-immigrant parties,23 and may even lead to more anti-immigrant violence.24 Given the transformation of the media landscape and the rise of alternative media sources, we could see further polarization of immigration attitudes in the future.
These findings can in part be explained by the content of media reports. A recent review of the scholarship on immigration concludes that “immigration coverage is often negative and conflict-centered” and that immigrants tend to be portrayed as “delinquents or criminals.”25 News reporting generally tends to be negative, likely because consumers are more reactive towards negative news reports.26 Therefore, a large part of news media focuses on immigrant crime in particular.27 This disproportionate focus – despite a lack of systematic evidence that immigration increases crime rates28 – creates a perception of threat among many citizens for whom fears about crime become synonymous with fears about immigration.29
Public Support for Immigration
Could the attitude-shaping role of political elites also be used to increase positive views on immigration? One answer highlights an unintended consequence of the rise of anti-immigrant parties, which is a backlash among their opponents. While the representation of these parties in national parliaments can serve as a signal of legitimacy to their supporters, it can also raise concerns about the future of public norms to those that oppose them. Ideological polarization can be observed in the wake of the rise of anti-immigrant parties,30 with the polarization of immigration attitudes being one effect.
Political elites that intend to rally support for immigration could also set up information campaigns, which have the potential to balance public opposition. Average citizens tend to have limited knowledge about political issues, including immigration. Thus, to some degree, their opposition to immigration is driven by misconceptions about its consequences. Educating the general public about the positive effects of immigration can therefore have a significant impact on their views. A study conducted in Japan, for example, finds that providing information about the potential benefits of immigration in addressing key challenges of industrialized societies, such as an aging population or under-funded social welfare and pension systems, can significantly increase support for immigration.31 Given that many European countries face similar policy challenges, these types of information campaigns may also increase pro-immigration attitudes among Western European citizens.
The previous finding also suggests that the way in which elites frame immigration may play an important role in the effectiveness of campaigns aimed at raising public support. Since fears about immigration are to a large part driven by concerns about its broader economic and social impact rather than by narrow self-interest, attempts to counter public opposition should tackle these sociotropic views.32 A major frame of reference that individuals use when evaluating the consequences of immigration is the effect it will have on their compatriots. If they believe that immigration will be beneficial to them and their fellow citizens, more individuals will be supportive of immigrants coming to their country.33
In Western Europe, Green and Left parties remain staunchly pro-immigration. Since there is evidence that voters who switch parties tend to adopt the stances of their new party on immigration, an expansion of the Green or Left electorate could have a positive effect on public attitudes.34 Green parties have seen a rise in electoral support in recent years, primarily due to an influx of voters concerned about the environment.35 A side effect of this trend might be a subsequent decrease in concerns about immigration among these new Green-affiliated supporters.
Finally, by giving immigrants a voice and an opportunity to share their stories, the media could facilitate more inclusive conversations, indirectly increasing support for immigration. A lot of media coverage about immigration is not just negative, but also tends to talk about immigrants while rarely including their perspective. It is known, however, that taking the perspective of the outgroup can foster more inclusionary attitudes and behavior.36
Conclusion
Elite discourse about immigration in Western Europe is driven by strategic calculations of politicians who respond to electoral incentives. However, as politicians tend to have a biased perception of public opinion on immigration, pro-immigration voters need to become more vocal. Many Western European citizens support immigration and do not feel threatened by immigrants. However, their voices often remain underrepresented in public debates. By making themselves more heard by political elites, for example by contacting their political representatives or engaging with non-governmental organizations that support immigrants, pro-immigration Europeans could correct misperceptions about public opinion among politicians and the media, eventually leading to a more balanced debate.
On a related note, academic research on elite rhetoric and attitudes towards immigration has mostly focused on when elites reduce public support for immigration. We know much less about potential backlash effects among pro-immigration citizens beyond ideological polarization. For example, does the rise of anti-immigrant parties and inflammatory rhetoric towards immigrants raise the importance of the issue for them? Do they feel more motivated to engage politically? How do they perceive mainstream political parties who do not counter anti-immigrant rhetoric out of fear of electoral losses? Providing systematic answers to these questions would help us gain a more complete picture of how elite discourse on immigration affects public attitudes.
Finally, public discourse is to a large part shaped by misinformation and emotions. Here, it is the responsibility of the media, especially public broadcasts funded by citizens, to fact-check and correct false statements that have the potential to spark hostility against immigrants. By intensifying these efforts, the media could make the public debate on immigration more objective and allow citizens to make more informed decisions regarding their policy preferences and their voting choice.
To access the works cited & endnotes, download the full report.
The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the author, and do not represent Fiker Institute.
